Heckler & Koch: weapon of choice for Gaddafi’s son

On Febuary 27th, as pro-Gaddafi militias and mercenaries were patrolling the streets of Tripoli, a video was posted to YouTube showing Saif al-Gaddafi, son of Libyan dictator Colonel Gaddafi, rallying supporters and promising to send them weapons to fight the protesters.

In the video, Saif Gaddafi can clearly be seen toting a Heckler & Koch G36 assault rifle. In a subsequent interview, Saif was asked by Channel 4 Foreign Affairs Correspondent Jonathan Miller about the “AK-47” he was brandishing in the video. Showing his pride for the weapon, Saif replied “That was not an AK; that was a Heckler.”

Serbian war criminal Arkan posing with his H&K gun

This is not the first time that Heckler & Koch weapons have been chosen by dictators and warlords. Notorious Serbian warlord Arkan, who was indicted by the UN for crimes against humanity, carried a silenced H&K MP5 submachine gun, and armed his bodyguards with MP5s too.

Heckler & Koch has an international sales office in Nottingham, which exports millions of pounds worth of weapons every year.

Share this:

16 comments to Heckler & Koch: weapon of choice for Gaddafi’s son

On the selective picking of pictures – where are the photographs of the British SAS using these weapons? Or the USA Delta force using these weapons – or police marksmen and special European forces using these weapons?

Surely there should be some balanced reporting here!

I recall that non of the murder / suicides in USA recently – college students killing other college students, ever used a HK weapon?

Will you give the same attention to Glock or Colt or any of the American made weapons that have killed people or that dictators have got hold of!

To be honest, the prospect of “We would like to see people everywhere campaigning against their local arms companies” is a very naive, possibly even absurd point of view. Small arms are simply another means of warfare that mankind is evidently geared towards using to achieve their means. Whether that be noble and just means of protection and law enforcement or sinister motives of aggression and slaughter, we have to remember that it is not the guns but the people behind the guns that are responsible for their actions. If it wasn’t HKs, dictators would be using AK47s, Makarovs, Uzis or some other form of small arms. You can’t seriously be advocating people to protest against all armament manufacturers, if they all closed down that wouldn’t stop conflict altogether, people would still use sticks and stones if they had to, firearms actually allow for quicker, less-agonizing deaths than previous forms of weaponry had although they are no doubt incredibly dangerous in the wrong hands. My point is if it wasn’t HKs, people would get some other firearm to do the job.

You are campaigning for a world without guns – is that really what you want?

Your freedom of speech is protected by guns.

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

Humanity is not yet sufficiently evolved to not consider violence a suitable response to a conflict of interest. Until that happens, the threat of an equally violent response can, in many cases, avoid violence.

I don’t like nuclear weapons, but I cannot deny that it is almost certainly thanks to their existence that the cold war remained cold…

You are campaigning for a world without guns – is that really what you want?

Er… Is that a trick question?

Your freedom of speech is protected by guns.

No it isn’t. The biggest threat to my freedom of speech is the government, and they’re the one with all the guns.

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

By “rough men” do you mean the armed forces? Like the British soldiers who tortured Baha Moussa to death? Like the guards at Abu Ghraib? When those rough men do their violence, it is not on my behalf, and it does not help me to sleep peaceably.

Humanity is not yet sufficiently evolved to not consider violence a suitable response to a conflict of interest.

If humanity is not yet sufficiently evolved, don’t you think it’s a bit irresponsible to arm them with hi-tech weapons systems?

…the threat of an equally violent response can, in many cases, avoid violence.

The availability of weapons can, in many cases, facilitate violence.

I don’t like nuclear weapons, but I cannot deny that it is almost certainly thanks to their existence that the cold war remained cold…

It is almost certainly thanks to their existence that the Cold War nearly escalated to a nuclear war (cf Cuban Missile Crisis).

Well, you can continue to protest guns all you want. However, when the window shatters at 3 A.M., I very much doubt a well reasoned argument will dissuade violence on the part of the intruder. That being said, I would like to assert a few facts.
Fact: The world is a nasty, dangerous place. People still fight for many, many reasons.
Fact: Not all people are equal in size, strength, or fighting capability.
Fact: Some people use their natural advantages in size to intimidate and abuse others, particularly women.
Fact: Guns equalize the disparities caused by the previous facts.
Fact: By arguing for the banning of guns, you are stating that people don’t have the right do fight on an equal level against others who have a advantage in size, etc. over them.
In essence, the “ban all guns” line is asserting that 100lb women have the right to fistfight 250lb rapists.
Food for thought, innit?

Acts of violence are going to be a part of human interaction forever. In order for us to have freedoms and protect our human rights we will have to meet the oppressive members of humanity with a equal or superior means of violence. H&K does everything in their power to supply arms only to those they believe are not using them to oppress freedom. Why would you want to shut down this company?

Yes. Unfortunately, humans will always live with violence – this is why we think flooding the world with weapons is a bad idea. It’s the same reason you wash your hands after chopping chili. You understand that humans will always live with itchy arses, and so you attempt to mitigate the problems associated with this fact.

If there was any evidence, whatsoever, that people were using weapons to keep the peace, rather than to kill each other, then you might have the beginnings of a point.